Blogcritics

Announcement: Short-content feeds

Phillip Winn — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT

Sunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding.

TV Review: Doctor Who - "The Lazarus Experiment" (WooWho #6)

Daniel Woolstencroft — Sat, 19 May 2007 02:36:14 EDT

Three members of the Woolstencroft family are contributors to BC Magazine. Each discovered the BBC's Doctor Who at a different point: Tony goes all the way back to Hartnell, Ian started with Pertwee, and Daniel came on board during Davison's stay in the Tardis. The Script Tony: Solid but clichéd. What more can you say about yet another “mad scientist turns himself into monster” story?Ian: Sometimes it pays to keep things simple. There isn’t a lot of plot here – mad scientist builds a machine to make him young, things don’t work out as planned and mad scientist turns into a monster who feeds on people, the Doctor has to stop him – but it’s a well-written story that gives both the regular cast and the guest stars plenty to work with.Tony: And at least Stephen Greenhorn is sensible enough to keep the Jones family involvement reasonably brief.Ian: I thought Martha’s family were far less annoying than anticipated, and that has as much to do with the writing as the performances. There is also some intriguing foreshadowing of events to come, just who was the mystery man and what did he whisper to Martha’s mum? This is Greenhorn’s first Doctor Who script but hopefully it won’t be his last.Daniel: Yes, it's a cliché - this is pretty much a Doctor Who tribute to The Fly - but there's some excellent dialogue here, mainly from the Doctor and Lazarus. The performances - as we'll mention in a moment - help a lot, but if the script sucked initially they'd have nothing to work with.The EffectsIan: The visual effects team have come up with one ugly-looking beastie. They may have borrowed parts from elsewhere (the creatures “mouth” brings to mind the bad guy in Blade II) but it works and while you’re never really convinced it’s anything but a CGI creation some nice interaction with the environment helps. Tony: Given the constraints of the budget, this was a top-notch effort. Great makeup on Mark Gatiss and a fantastic design on the creature. This was the best episode of the series so far.Daniel: Who cares if the monster was clearly CGI: it was incredibly cool. It's like some sort of Human Transformer; you can see the ribs and the shoulders, and despite its huge size suspension of disbelief isn't a problem. Easily one of the best Who creatures I've seen, and some of the best CGI animation the series has given us so far.Cast and Crew Tony: I could have lived without the hackneyed, creature-POV shots, but aside from that this was a much better effort from director Richard Clark. The acting honours go without a doubt to Mark Gatiss, completely convincing under a ton of makeup playing a 76-year-old. I’m now firmly convinced that the Doctor has made a huge mistake and picked the wrong sister as his new travelling companion: Gugu Mbatha-Raw is far more appealing as Tish than Freema Agyeman, who appears to have very little dramatic range. Reggie Yates is about as good as you’d expect a TV presenter to be (not very) and Adjoa Andoh is very good at frowning (and not much else).Ian: Tennent and Agyeman are back at the top of there game here with some snappy interplay between the two leads. As previously stated I thought Martha’s family are a lot better here than they were in “Smith and Jones” and Gugu Mbatha-Raw as her sister Tish is actually rather good. I wouldn’t mind seeing her hitch a ride in the TARDIS at some point either.Daniel: Funnily enough, my wife turned to me during this episode and described Agyeman as having a kind of "rabbit in the headlights" approach to acting. And much as I'd like to argue, I don't think I can. Thank God for Tennant then, who is incredible when the script allows. Despite that, I totally agree that Mark Gatiss steals the episode. It's a spellbinding performance that never hits a duff note. It makes me wonder what sort of a Doctor Gatiss would have been...Ian: Gatiss is simply wonderful as Professor Lazarus, he’s both humorous and monstrous in equal measure. The best baddie so far this season.Overall Ian: A return to form after the terrible two-part Dalek story. This shows how good the series can be with decent writers and less reliance on old villains. The trailer at the end gave us a glimpse of what’s ahead in the rest of the series and it looks like the best could still be to come - Derek Jacobi, John Simm and the return of Captain Jack! Daniel: Much, much better than the Daleks, and the sort of inconsequential Saturday-night entertainment that Doctor Who excels at when it's done right. Agyeman hasn't quite clicked properly yet, but it took Billy a few episodes. We shall see. Ian: A little less sonic screwdriver would be nice as well.Tony: I’d put this one in the success column. However I’ve been vaguely dissatisfied with this season and I think I now know why. Billie Piper was the heart of the show and with her departure, the spark seems to have gone out. There isn’t the same emotional impact that used to be there and Freema Agyeman doesn’t seem able to replicate that. It’s still an entertaining show but it’s dropped several rungs down the ladder.WooWho returns shortly with "42".

Daniel Woolstencroft is the brains behind Is There Food? - containing topics as diverse as zombies, Apple, technology, film, and other assorted strangeness.

TV Review: Doctor Who - "Daleks" (WooWho #4 and #5)

Daniel Woolstencroft — Fri, 4 May 2007 22:16:49 EDT

Three members of the Woolstencroft family are contributors to BC Magazine. Each discovered the BBC's Doctor Who at a different point: Tony goes all the way back to Hartnell, Ian started with Pertwee, and Daniel came on board during Davison's stay in the Tardis. This week WooWho faces its biggest challenge yet -- we were all subjected to a two part episode: "Daleks in Manhattan" and "Evolution of the Daleks"The ScriptIan: Where to begin? Writer Helen Raynor obviously owns a copy of the “Writers Guide to Stereotypes” and isn’t afraid to use it, treating us to such clichés as the tough showgirl with a heart of gold, the greedy industrialist who’ll do anything for power, and the disfigured man watching from the wings as his lost love performs onstage. Then of course there are the pig-men. The Daleks have had slaves before – the Robomen in "The Dalek Invasion of Earth" and, most memorably, the Ogrons in several Pertwee-era stories spring to mind – but this time the fiendish pepper pots have merged human and pig DNA. Why? God only knows, for it seems clear Raynor doesn’t have a clue. Unless Dalek DNA is a close match to that of a pig.Daniel: There's this idea that Doctor Who terrifies young children, causing them to hide behind the sofa lest the nasty beasts on screen "get them". This episode nearly had me doing the same, thanks to its ludicrous plot - why would a heavily armored Dalek decide to make itself far more vulnerable? Amongst other puzzlers - and numerous additional flaws.Ian: This would have been bad enough as a single episode but it’s been padded out to a two-parter by falling back on the old Who tradition of having a lot of pointless running around in corridors (or in this case sewers). I’d say this was disappointing, but I never had high hopes for it in the first place. Tony: Laughably awful. How anyone could have thought this would work on screen is beyond me. It may have worked better (not that it worked at all for me) if they’d played it for laughs, but there are some ludicrously overblown lines culminating with "The Doctor is in!" One of the most unintentionally hilarious episodes I can remember.The EffectsIan: It’s the make-up effects team that make the biggest impression this time; unfortunately it’s not a favourable one. Did someone find the pig-head mould from "Aliens of London” in a box somewhere and decide “hey, pig-men would be cool!”? If so they were sadly mistaken. The pig-men are laughable, and not in a good way. And the best thing that can be said for the Dalek-human hybrid is that I’m relieved they didn’t call him Davros! Tony: In a word, unconvincing. And the whole pig-men idea was just idiotic anyway.Ian: Depression-era New York is reasonably well realised by the visual effects team, but being a “real” place it’s not very exciting. Then there’s the now regular sight of flying Daleks, although this time it’s a little less convincing. Daniel: Oh good -- a stupid-looking Dalek-human hybrid prosthetic, stupid-looking pig-men, a stupid-looking half pig-man, and Daleks that look pretty stupid thanks to how they've been shot (the Dalek-cam was laughable). Some of the shots from high up on the Empire State were passable, but there wasn't much to recommend, or enjoy, here. Cast and CrewIan: Terribly fake American accents and hammy performances are the order of the day from the supporting cast. As for the leads, David Tennant looks like he’d rather be somewhere else and Freema Agyeman, after several fine performances, does nothing here, but then the script gives her nothing to do. Tony: Almost universally bad. Dreadful attempts at accents, Freema Agyeman has gone back to amateur hour and not even the usually reliable Tennant can make this dialogue work. Some of the sloppiest direction yet seen in the series.Daniel: Miranda Raison needs to stick to Spooks (MI5); her accent here was utterly diabolical. Hugh Quarshie does a better American accent than the last time I saw him (in the excellent, if misunderstood, horror Nightbreed), but it's still deeply crap. Ryan Carnes is actually American, but surrounded by so much crapness actually sounds as cheesy as the others. Tennant gets virtually nothing to do, as does Agyeman. The less said about Eric Loren's Diagoras the better, I think. In a word: lousy.Overall Daniel: I never thought I'd be bored watching Doctor Who, and I never thought I'd be thinking "please, make it stop" either. But I was, and I did. Oh dear...Ian: A terrible story that almost had me remembering the John Nathan-Turner years with fondness. As I credit Nathan-Turner with killing the show (or at least putting it into a coma for fifteen years) that should give you some idea of how much I disliked this two part story. Still, Doctor Who fans have always had to take the rough with the smooth. Lets hope Davies gives the Daleks a rest now.Tony: An unmitigated disaster. I felt like I was watching a Carry On film as people ran down tunnels being chased by pig-men and Daleks, then ran back again. Oh, and please stop with the flying Daleks – they just don’t work. Even with a decent budget and effects team a flying dustbin is not going to look even remotely menacing. I found it almost impossible to keep from bursting out laughing whenever the new human-Dalek hybrid spoke with its ridiculous fake accent, and a head surrounded by very badly animated tentacles.Daniel: I thought he sounded too much like ex-Conservative Party leader Michael Howard to take seriously too... but that might just be me.Tony: I’m sure next week's (despite featuring members of the appalling Jones clan) will be better – it can’t possibly get any worse.Daniel: "The Lazarus Experiment" does look like it might be quite good again; a return to the single part episode, and a format that should hopefully work. But, yes, the family return!WooWho returns in a few short days, with "The Lazarus Experiment".

Daniel Woolstencroft is the brains behind Is There Food? - containing topics as diverse as zombies, Apple, technology, film, and other assorted strangeness.

TV Review: Doctor Who - "Gridlock" (WooWho #3)

Daniel Woolstencroft — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:52:20 EDT

Three members of the Woolstencroft family are contributors to BC Magazine. Each discovered the BBC's Doctor Who at a different point: Tony goes all the way back to Hartnell, Ian started with Pertwee, and Daniel came on board during Davison's stay in the Tardis. Each week, they will offer their take on the latest episode. WooWho continues...The ScriptIan: It's a bit more like BooWho this week for me, I'm afraid. The old SF chestnut of a nomadic community gets the Russell T. Davies treatment in this absurd tale of the ultimate traffic jam. Is he trying to make some kind of statement about our over-reliance on technology? It would seem so as, instead of taking his usual approach of playing it for laughs, he appears to be in deadly earnest.Tony: Not exactly sure what happened here. What started out as one of the most ludicrous plots ever seen on Doctor Who suddenly turned into a surprisingly moving piece on loss and loneliness. Quite an impressive achievement. Daniel: The Motorway elements didn't really work; it felt like too much of a forced analogy with today's environmental issues - something that Russell Davies does quite often, I've noticed. However, beyond that (the concept of the planet being wiped out, and the Face of Boe) this was another decent effort.Ian: And why, with a wealth of classic villains to choose from, do we see the return of Patrick Troughton's naff crab monsters: the Macra?Daniel: I suspect it was a bit of fun: RTD stated as much in the Doctor Who Confidential episode that followed "Gridlock".The EffectsTony: Brilliantly effective transformation of Father Dougal (Ardal O'Hanlon) into a cat. Unfortunately The Motorway wasn’t quite so well done. A little over ambitious perhaps?Ian: At times the special effects were quite good; and the ending - with the flying cars zipping around New New York - looked great. Just a shame that the previously crap plastic Macra have evolved into the equally crap CGI Macra.Daniel: The Motorway struck me as a brilliant way to cut costs on this episode: every set's the same (pretty much), the exhaust fumes conveniently fog the front window so you can't see anything, and it's easy enough to film. Admittedly the external jump-y bits - as the Doctor goes all Minority Report and tries to get to Martha - looked quite good, and mucho blue screen must have balanced the cheapness of the interiors.Cast and CrewTony: Even hiding behind the cat prosthetics Ardal O’Hanlon is still eminently recognisable -- great cameo.Daniel: I'd like to see that character again actually: I'm sure Brannigan's got a bit more depth than we got to see here. Tony: Anna Hope did well with the return of Novice Hame. Freema Agyeman manages to improve from the previous episode, finally showing some potential in the closing scene, and Tennant shows once again why he’s one of our best actors: absolutely brilliant.Ian: Yes! Thank God for Tennant and Agyeman! Between them they just about manage to make this mess watchable. With the pair spending much of the episode apart, Agyeman gets to show what she can do out of the Doctor’s shadow and, strange as it may seem coming in such a bad story, this is possibly her strongest performance yet. She even has a very touching moment with Tennant at the episode’s close, managing to get the Doctor to open up a little. Daniel: Agyeman did well, I thought, particularly in the "Old Rugged Cross" scene. But David Tennant was simply stunning in this episode. For a start, he's got to be utterly convincing when talking about his homeworld, Gallifrey, a place the audience has never seen, and chances are will never see. More importantly, Tennant's never seen it, but you believe - totally and unquestionably - that he has. Then he's acting with a large prosthetic head, and actually making us believe and care! I felt genuine grief when the Face of Boe passed away!OverallTony: I thought, after the first ten minutes, that this would be a complete misfire of an episode. An absolutely ludicrous plot contrivance gets things off to a very shaky start; but then, due mainly to a fantastic performance from David Tennant and a very emotional reunion with the Face of Boe, it turns into a bit of a triumph. “You are not alone” -- very intriguing.Ian: With Davies having resurrected the Macra I’m left wondering, “What next, the Zarbi?” Give us the Ice Warriors or the Sea Devils if you must plunder the old series! Still, at least The Face of Boe’s dying message leaves me with the hope one worthwhile villain will make a return this series.Daniel: Ian, you're such a fanboy.Ian: Guilty as charged. Next week brings the Daleks and while that would normally be a cause for excitement, two things have me worried – some very suspect American accents in the trailer and writer Helen Raynor providing her first Who script, after working on the less than spectacular Torchwood. Here’s hoping it turns out all right.Daniel: I agree. I thought this was going to have very little merit, but somehow it managed to turn itself around. It's a testament to the strength of the production team that they could produce an episode like this and make it work. It looks like they're going to need all of their powers next week though -- piggy-headed sewer dwellers, time traveling Daleks, and fake American accents like nails down a blackboard do not bode well. Tony: A good dose of piggy-headed sewer dwellers could be just the thing to take your mind off the comedy accents. I'd much prefer it if the Daleks weren't making an appearance in every series. It really is a case of familiarity breeds contempt.WooWho returns next week with "Daleks in Manhattan".

Daniel Woolstencroft is the brains behind Is There Food? - containing topics as diverse as zombies, Apple, technology, film, and other assorted strangeness.

TV Review: Doctor Who - "The Shakespeare Code" (WooWho #2)

Daniel Woolstencroft — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 14:41:41 EDT

Three members of the Woolstencroft family are contributors to BC Magazine. Each discovered the BBC's Doctor Who at a different point: Tony goes all the way back to Hartnell, Ian started with Pertwee, and Daniel came on board during Davison's stay in the Tardis. Each week, they will offer their take on the latest episode. WooWho continues...The Script:Tony: Badly written; it tries to mix "Olde Englishe" with the modern idiom and comes off a loser. The generic “evil aliens plot to rid the Earth of humans and take over” is becoming overused.Ian: I thought this was by far the funniest episode of “New Who” thanks largely to a wonderfully witty script. Time paradox jokes, race jokes, Shakespeare jokes (including a gay Shakespeare joke - an addition of producer Russell T. Davies, perhaps?), even a Harry Potter joke, they’re all here and yet none of this humour feels forced, it flows from the characters and the situations.Daniel: I'd agree with that; much pop culture fun this week. It all felt quite self-aware and confident, perhaps more confident than Who's been for a while actually. Gareth Roberts' script works well within the confines of what Doctor Who is. I'm not sure about the witches though - the Carrionites. Creepy for the kiddies, but nothing particularly new or exciting for the grown-ups.Ian: The villains may not have been the most exciting that Who’s given us, but they perfectly fit the story; you can keep the Daleks, give me witches if it means the story will be this entertaining.The Effects:Ian: The make-up on the witches is good, although I doubt it taxed the effects department to create three such traditional-looking villains. As for the big return of the Carrionites at the climax of the story, the effects may be less than spectacular but this isn’t a story that requires a lot of effects. In some ways it’s like a stage production, no coincidence, I think, given that much of the story revolves around William Shakespeare.Tony: Yes, they seemed to fluctuate from very good (the crowd scenes at The Globe) to not so good (the witch on a broomstick: it didn't look much better than creating a silhouette using black paper).Daniel: I'd say some of the CGI looked really good; not the finale with all the Carrionites, but the locations. It didn't look like a cheap, nasty recreation of old world London. And I suppose the prosthetics on the witches did its job. There's not really a great deal to say this week.Cast and Crew:Daniel: Charles Palmer does another good job as director; he's not trying to be too flashy or over-the-top, and he seems to be perfectly confident with the scripts he's had so far.Tony: An unusually subdued Tennant this week; maybe he wasn’t happy with the material? Freema Agyeman is beginning to fulfill the misgivings I had after her debut. She’s trying too hard to act and consequently is overacting, which is going to become tiresome very quickly if she doesn’t get it under control. Ian: Really? I think Tennant and Agyeman are really starting to gel as a team, playing off each other with such perfect timing you’d think they’ve been working together for years. The bedroom scene is a particular highlight, but the duo really shines throughout. Having said that, the episode is almost stolen from under their noses by Dean Lennox Kelly as the legendary bard: capable of connecting with the common man, yet with the insight to see through the Doctor and his “psychic paper”, he really is, to use the Doctor’s words, “the most human of humans” and Kelly’s performance shows him to be just that.Daniel: I warmed to Agyeman even more this week than last. Her character isn't as well defined as Rose's yet, but it's clear that they're taking her in a different direction. She's thinking a bit more, and I like that. Whereas Rose didn't have much of an education, Martha is able to offer some genuine intelligent insight into things. I'm a bit worried about the suggestion that she's "in love" or at least "fancies" The Doctor; let's not go there again. Tennant does a good job, but this is more of a comedy episode for him, not one that significantly flexes his acting muscles. And, while on the subject of "let's not"s: please don't have The Doctor "die" every week. I quite liked DLK's Shakespeare too: it was a witty, charismatic take on the great man. Tony: No! Dean Lennox Kelly’s Shakespeare is abysmal, and far from coming over as a genius is just smarmy and annoying. The acting honours are once again stolen by the villain with a full-blooded performance from Christina Cole (significantly better than her vapid turn in “Hex”).Daniel: I thought I recognised her! Yes, she was entertainingly villainous, not sure that I'd class her as a stand-out though; I'd say this week offered good performances all-round.Overall:Tony: I was left with a vague feeling of unease after a disappointing episode. Is it starting to go wrong? Tennant is still a hugely enjoyable Doctor, but I’m even more concerned about the new sidekick. More imaginative plots are needed and the fact that the Daleks are due to be trotted out again soon is worrying.Daniel: I'm a little concerned about the third appearance of the Daleks in three series myself, but previous Dalek storylines haven't let me down, so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.Ian: The series may have its faults, but when it goes back in time it really shines, and this is another excellent historical tale. It also leaves a far more intriguing question than the previous episode, namely: what’s the Doctor done to piss off Queen Elizabeth I?Daniel: I'm not entirely sure we'll find out this series, if ever. I enjoyed this week's episode, it made me laugh but that might be because I'm a) quite geeky, and b) secretly (ha!) a bit of a fanboy. It's a bit early to write this third series off, and there are plenty of very interesting sounding episodes to come. It's still a damn fine way to spend an hour on Saturday evening.WooWho returns next week with "Gridlock" - assuming the BBC don't reschedule it thanks to the football...

Daniel Woolstencroft is the brains behind Is There Food? - containing topics as diverse as zombies, Apple, technology, film, and other assorted strangeness.

TV Review: Doctor Who - "Smith and Jones" (WooWho #1)

Daniel Woolstencroft — Wed, 4 Apr 2007 21:55:32 EDT

Three members of the Woolstencroft family are contributers to BC Magazine. Each discovered the BBC's Doctor Who at a different point: Tony goes all the way back to Hartnell, Ian started with Pertwee, and Daniel came on board during Davison's stay in the Tardis. Each week, they will offer their take on the latest episode. This is WooWho. On the Return:Daniel: Doctor Who is back! Saturday night television is saved! That said, rival channel ITV had things covered for the last few weeks with their surprisingly gripping Primeval. Can season three of Doctor Who reclaim the crown?Tony: This was a moderately successful first episode to what’s erroneously called season three (which I find immensely annoying).Ian: Saturday tea-time is something to get excited about again! Hopefully this will be the most consistently good season since the show's triumphant return.The Script:Tony: The plot is quite good for Russell Davies - he hasn’t been the strongest writer on the series - but he appears to have aspirations to join the writers of EastEnders, judging by the appalling family of caricatures he’s lumbered the Doctor’s new companion with. Poorly written and poorly acted, I hope they won’t feature as often as Rose’s mum did previously.Ian: Agreed: the opening scene is obviously designed to introduce us to Martha's family, but feels like an outtake from a bad soap. Thankfully things get a little better with the arrival of the Doctor, and the transportation to the moon of the hospital in which Martha works. The reasoning behind this is a little shaky: alien race of the week - the Judoon - have no jurisdiction over Earth, yet it's okay for them to transport a human-filled piece to the moon? Logic is rarely a prime ingredient in a good Who story.Daniel: Martha's family had a far better introduction than Rose's - and could lead to some potentially entertaining circumstances in the future. Just as long as The Doctor doesn't settle back into his "popping 'round for tea" routine again, things'll be okay. Beyond that, this was a witty, effective piece of writing that's totally out of character for Davies.Ian: I'd say the weakest moment is probably the throwaway reference to Martha's cousin who "died during the Cybermen invasion". I'd expected Russell T. Davies to come up with something a little cleverer than that to explain why Martha looks exactly like one of the Torchwood employees in the season two finale.The Effects:Tony: Decent; this is actually starting to look like a show with a reasonable budget for a change. I found the Judoon extremely unimaginative though.Ian: The 'hospital on the moon' idea had the potential to look totally ridiculous, but the effects were surprisingly good. It's obvious that the BBC now see the series as one of their top shows and aren't afraid to spend some money on it. Even better were the Judoon and the ships they arrive in; the spacecraft are supposed to be big and they look it. Seeing hordes of extraterrestrials marching out across the surface of the moon was great. Before they took off their helmets they reminded me of the Sontarans! Great job on the make-up.Daniel: The CGI work on new Who has always been imaginative, but it's always looked slightly cheap - there's always that slightly crap quality to it that befits Doctor Who. The CGI effects here didn't look so tacky, but the wobbly headed Judoon certainly did. And quite right too: there's room for a bit of crapness where Who monsters are concerned. They're a neat idea though: I found the concept of a race of unswerving mercenary militia quite enjoyable. Cast & Crew:Tony: David Tennant has captured the essence of the Doctor that’s been missing from every portrayal since Tom Baker, and he now appears extremely comfortable in the role. Thank God the awful Christopher Eccleston decided to move on after only one series. Ian: David Tennant has really got a handle on the character now and hardly puts a foot wrong. Daniel: Tennant has arrived! He was 'getting it' towards the end of the last series, but he seems to have perfected his Doctor now. Hopefully we'll see a more consistent performance this season. Tony: The jury is still out on Martha Jones. Freema Agyeman doesn’t show the charisma or the acting talent that Billie Piper did, but this is only her first episode, and her character is initially less appealing than Rose anyway. No more needs to be said about her freakshow family. Daniel: I liked Freema. I'd convinced myself that she'd be fine, and she didn't let me down. She's confident, intelligent, far less cockerney than Rose, and should provide a new angle on things. Less family, and less kissing though please. Ian: Yeah, she makes a good first impression. She has a nice chemistry with Tennant, but I agree -- no more kissing.Tony: Roy Marsden is wasted in what is really only a cameo appearance, and for me the episode is stolen (as usual) by the awesome Anne Reid. She’s clearly having the time of her life playing the vampiric hospital patient. Ian: A good villain is essential, and this episode has one in the Plasmavore aka Florence Finnigan. The script makes the most of this intergalactic vampire, who has the appearance of a little old lady. She gets many of the best lines, and clearly relishes the sort of part that doesn't often come to a woman of her years. Anne Reid has a ball. Veteran actor Roy Marsden is criminally wasted, killed off after fifteen minutes with only a few lines of dialogue and you have to wonder why they bothered getting a name actor for such a nothing part. And if Martha's family become recurring characters, I hope the Doctor's next traveling companion is an orphan. Daniel: Scarey old vampire lady: Anne Reid is great. Roy Marsden doesn't do a lot, and, as I said, I didn't think the family were as bad as has been suggested. Watch Reggie Yates (Martha's brother) - he's "popular" and will almost certainly get a bit more to do later on. He's got charisma in a presenting role, but I don't know if he can act. I have a horrible suspicion that we'll find out this season. The director did a good job on this episode too. Ian: Agreed: Charles Palmer does a commendable job on his first episode, keeping things barreling along and papering over the cracks in Russell T. Davies script. Overall: Tony: Not a bad start then really. There are some extremely interesting guest stars to look forward to later in the series: Ardal O’Hanlon, Mark Gatiss, Nichola McAuliffe, and Derek Jacobi are all making an appearance, and there's what promises to be another extremely spooky episode penned by Steven ("Are you my mummy?") Moffat. So, despite the pending return of the irritatingly smug John Barrowman as Captain Jack Harkness (fresh from the horrible mess that was Torchwood), I’m still hooked. Ian: Davies stories are never the greatest (and often the worst) but this is probably the best opening episode of the three seasons. It's certainly a better introduction to a companion than the one Rose got. Martha's promising; let's just hope that Davies keeps the recurring cast down to her and the Doctor. Using Rose's family to flesh out the cast worked to an extent but the series should be about the adventures of the Doctor and his companion. It worked much better in the old days when he had no control over the Tardis and thus couldn't just pop round to Martha's mum's house for tea. Daniel: Episode one of season three wasn't the car crash it could have been. The series' producers seem to have made a sensible choice with Freema, the CGI is looking better than ever, Tennant is in the zone, and Davies has managed to keep a lid on the man-eating dustbins and flatulent aliens. Things are looking up. With the Tardis set to visit Shakespeare next week, and future episodes revisiting The Face of Boe, and encountering the Daleks in 1930s New York, there's much to look forward to this year. Oh, and just who is this Mr. Saxon fellow? Ian: The main thing that worries me is that the series is falling into a set routine, dropping hints about the “big bad” throughout the season (this time Mr. Saxon) and doing a historical story as the second episode (okay, it was the third one in season one, but you know what I mean). I just hope they don’t get complacent with their “winning” formula. WooWho returns next week, with "The Shakespeare Code".

Daniel Woolstencroft is the brains behind Is There Food? - containing topics as diverse as zombies, Apple, technology, film, and other assorted strangeness.